Genesis 1 and theories of origin

Published: 16 February 2012 (GMT+10)

Editor: CMI published a
critique by Professor Benno Zuiddam of a paper by Dr John Dickson that argued
that the Jewish scholar Philo and various Christian church fathers took a figurative
view of the days of creation in Genesis 1. Dickson argued that this set a precedent for
today’s interpreters who want to interpret Genesis in a ‘non-literalistic’
way that would leave the Bible open to accommodating modern secular hypotheses about
the origin of everything (which of course would have to include evolution and its
billions of years). Dr Dickson’s response follows here, and then
Dr Zuiddam replies. We would encourage the reader who reads Dr Dickson’s response to read all of Dr Zuiddam’s original paper (as well as Prof. Zuiddam’s reply here) and see that Dr Dickson has not responded to the latter 2/3 of what Prof. Zuiddam wrote, which includes the most important ramifications of Dr Dickson’s ‘non-literalistic’ reading of Genesis for Christian theology.

Wikipedia.org

John Dickson says that Clement of Alexandria, for example, viewed the days of creation
Genesis 1 in a figurative manner, but Benno Zuiddam says this is not consistent
with all the evidence.

Dickson in his own words

I am grateful to be able to offer a response to Professor Benno Zuiddam’s
critique1 of my ISCAST journal
article about how I read the first chapter of Genesis.2 There are many commendable things about his piece—the
clear and compelling writing style, his love of patristic writings and his obvious
concern to contend for the truth of Scripture. My criticisms are substantial but
they cannot take away from Zuiddam’s admirable intellect and intentions.

A blow-by-blow self-defence would be tedious and appear more wounded than I really
am. And, in this case, it is quite unnecessary. Three broad observations will suffice
to explain why I feel Prof Zuiddam has not been careful, accurate or fair-minded
in his treatment of my essay.

1. Misrepresentations

Prof Zuiddam has misrepresented the article he criticizes in three striking ways.

1.1. A haven for evolution?

First, Zuiddam consistently portrays me as someone trying “to create a ‘safe
haven’ for faith and Scripture in the onslaught of Neo-Darwinism and other
secular scientific views on the origin of man.” This is far from true. I can
only imagine he judged me insincere when I offered the following straightforward
statement in my paper: “My rejection of the literalistic reading of Genesis 1 offers no direct support for old-earth, progressive
creationism (or ‘theistic evolution’, as it is sometimes called), nor
is it intended to do so.” This was no sleight of hand. In fact, given the
intended readership (ISCAST is an organisation of professional scientists, most
of whom readily accept evolution), it would have been to my advantage to affirm
evolution. But I did not, as I wanted to stick to the area in which I am trained.
In controversies like this it is surely better to confront what is actually said
in an essay, not the imagined motives of the essayist.

1.2. The fathers’ views on Genesis 1

The second misrepresentation has to do with why I discussed the ancient
Jewish and Christian fathers’ views of Genesis 1 (a side-issue in my paper but the heart of Prof
Zuiddam’s response). Those who read only Zuiddam’s critique would imagine
that my reason for citing ancient readings of Genesis 1 was to bolster my own case for interpreting the
text in a less-than-literalistic way. The logic would be something like: because
Philo, Clement and Augustine read Genesis 1 in a non-concrete manner, we should feel comfortable
doing so as well. Some people no doubt argue this way, but I never have. I made
it plain in the essay that my discussion of the fathers was “not
intended as a proof or validation of my interpretation.” Rather, I explained
that I was simply trying to counter the suggestion of atheists like Richard Dawkins
that a non-concrete reading of Genesis 1 was Christians ‘running scared’ from
the troubling conclusions of evolutionary theory. By citing several pre-scientific-era
writers who also approached Genesis 1 in partly-symbolic ways I was endeavouring to
demonstrate only “that a non-literalistic interpretation of Genesis 1 is not necessarily a nervous, modern
reaction to the rise of contemporary science.” I am not sure how I could have
made this point clearer.

The upshot of misrepresenting the function of this part of my essay is that Prof
Zuiddam does not allow his readers to interact with the substance of my views. It
would surprise many to know that, even if all of his counter-arguments about ‘what
the fathers really thought’ were correct, this would not affect the thrust
of my article at all. My case for reading Genesis 1 in a non-literalistic manner was based on internal
exegetical issues which are left unaddressed in Zuiddam’s criticisms (though
I am sure he would have lots to say about these as well).

1.3. Denying the historical Adam

The third misrepresentation truly surprised me. I apparently deny an historical
Adam. Prof Zuiddam offers a long quotation from Augustine showing that the great
Latin father, along with all the other fathers, believed in a real figure who disobeyed
God in historical time. He then triumphantly declares:

It is as clear as the daylight of creation: Even Augustine leaves no room for Dickson’s
theory. Alas, the Church fathers seem to suffer the same fate as the classics: often
referred to, but not always read.

Leaving aside the miracle that I was able to earn a PhD in early Christianity in
a university classics department without reading the fathers or the classics, what
is astonishing to me about this section is that Prof Zuiddam has created a bogeyman
ex nihilo. He then spent a thousand words slaying him. I never even touch
on the subject of the creation and disobedience of Adam (and, for the record, I
regard him to be historical).

I warmly urge readers to compare our two essays and wonder with me why someone of
Zuiddam’s good standing would misrepresent an author so transparently.

2. Inappropriate tone

Before raising some technical responses to Prof Zuiddam’s critique, I should
say how uncomfortable I am with the general tone of his criticisms. I welcome genuine
scholarly interaction and disagreement over these and other issues. However, I was
disheartened to find an article weighed down by condescending rhetoric and unnecessary
back-handers.

2.1. The liberal type

At the beginning of the critique I am directly compared to a minister Zuiddam once
heard in a Dutch church years ago who taught that the early chapters of Genesis
were simply “invented”. That is a loaded word, and it is obvious which
‘type’ I am being cast into here. This is dog-whistling and is entirely
inappropriate for someone who wishes to be heard outside his immediate circle.

Readers should know that I firmly believe that every word of Genesis was directly
inspired by God. None of it is ‘invented’.

2.2. Dickson’s ignorance

Then there were the numerous embellishments designed to highlight my obvious ignorance
of important matters: Dickson “does not seem to realize”, “doesn’t
seem to be aware”, “is blissfully unaware”, and even “Had
Dickson been more familiar with Philo’s writings … ” I don’t
want to descend to an immature ‘Don’t-you-know-who-I-am? style argument,
but Prof Zuiddam must know that my published doctorate focuses on Second Temple
Jewish literature, including Philo. His are not the normal expressions of scholarly
conversation, let alone Christian scholarly conversation.

2.3. Dickson’s claimed uniqueness

Strangely, in another section I am accused of fancying myself a trailblazer whose
thoughts on Genesis are original answers to previously unsolved riddles: “As
Dickson presents ‘his’ solution to the Genesis ‘problem’,
the reader should realize that he is far from original;” and, “Dickson
has not come up with an original theory. On critical issues his method does not
include (or give credit to) contemporary scholarship on his subject;” one
must, therefore, “suppose he is not familiar with” scholarship on Genesis.

It is true that my essay was not replete with references to other scholars—it
was, after all, an introductory paper for professional scientists, not an entry
in Vetus Testamentum. Even so, I can still count four specialists named
in the footnotes as having thought these thoughts before me. More to the point,
in one place I call the reading of Genesis 1 offered in my paper “the majority view”.
Such a comment will be galling to some—and it may or may not be correct—but
it does put a spotlight on how odd it is that Zuiddam would suggest I was putting
myself forward as original. I was explicitly trying to be unoriginal. And when he
finally chides me for apparently supposing that I had invented the distinction between
‘literal’ and ‘literalistic’, I began to wonder whether
his critique was directed at my character as much as my views about Genesis.

3. Technical errors

I have reflected on Prof Zuiddam’s forcefully articulated arguments and double-checked
several of the key primary sources in dispute, and I remain unmoved. I am confident
that my original claim is correct: the first-century Jewish writer Philo and several
ancient Christian ‘greats’ read Genesis 1 in a non-literalistic manner. To repeat: none
of this suggests that we should follow these ancient interpretations. My point was
always only that such readings are not necessarily recent defensive moves in the
face of modern science.

3.1. What Philo specialists think

Prof Zuiddam is mistaken from his very first argument. He insists that “recent
scholarship” on the views of Philo of Alexandria is decidedly against my claim
that the Jewish philosopher read Genesis 1 in a non-concrete fashion. I am reprimanded for
relying on the 1929 standard English-Greek edition of Philo by Colson and Whitaker,
which states in no uncertain terms that the Alexandrian held a non-literal view
of the days of Genesis. Had I been more up-to-date, Zuiddam explains, I would have
been “dissuaded from this course altogether.” Then follows a crucial
quotation from one of the world’s “foremost Philo specialists”:

In actual fact, strange as it may seem, Philo scarcely allegorizes the account of
Genesis 1 (it is excluded from his two series of allegorical
commentaries).

The quotation comes from Professor David Runia, who is indeed a leading authority
on Philo and Editor-in-chief of the scholarly journal dedicated to the subject,
The Studia Philonica Annual. Zuiddam has certainly chosen a highly-regarded
witness against me, but he could not have made a more conspicuous error of judgment.
Not only does David Runia not say what Zuiddam hopes; he actually says the opposite.
Let me explain.

Firstly, no one said anything about Philo allegorizing Genesis. ‘Allegory’
is a technical method of ancient interpretation in which a passage of Scripture
is plumbed for its symbolic reference either to the life of the church or the life
of the soul. For example, ‘light’ is allegorized as a reference to the
knowledge of Christ and ‘dark’ a reference to spiritual ignorance. In
the article from which Prof Zuiddam takes the quotation, Runia is simply observing
that Philo’s detailed discussion of Genesis known as De Opificio Mundi
(On the Creation) hardly engages in allegorical exegesis. I agree and never
thought otherwise. But there is a world of difference between claiming that Philo
allegorized Genesis 1 (which I never did) and pointing out, as I did,
that for Philo “the reference to ‘six days’ in Genesis indicates
not temporal sequence but divine orderliness.” The ancient Jewish philosopher
certainly believed Genesis 1 teaches us stuff about a real creation—he
rejected the allegorical approach—but, at the same time, he believed Moses
used literary devices when describing the creative process.

In passing, I note that Prof Zuiddam repeats this misnomer when he insists that
Augustine also rejected the allegorical interpretation of Genesis 1, as if this settles the matter. In fact, it has
nothing to do with the question we are trying to resolve. Between allegory and literalism
there are myriad interpretative options. And, as I think Zuiddam knows, Augustine
certainly did not believe that God created the parts of the universe during six
24-hour days.

More significantly, if Prof Zuiddam thinks the renowned David Runia believes Philo
interpreted Genesis 1 in a concrete fashion, he is badly mistaken. In
the very review article from which Zuiddam takes his quotation—in fact, just
two sentences later—Runia states plainly that Philo read the ‘days’
of Genesis as ‘literary devices’:

At Opif. 15 Philo writes: “To each of the days he distributed some
of the sections of the universe.” I take this to mean that the writer [of
Genesis] spread the creation of the various parts of the cosmos out over the five
days of creation (excluding the first). Philo takes this to be a literary device.3

David Runia (here and elsewhere) confirms the ‘old’ opinion of Colson
and Whitaker, which I too follow. While not allegorizing Genesis, Philo takes the
six-day structure to be an example of the biblical author’s theological artistry
rather than the Creator’s historical activity—it is a ‘literary
device’. Prof Zuiddam has misrepresented his key scholarly citation and failed
to note that this well known scholar actually holds the contrary view (and said
so in the same paragraph). Zuiddam has more to do to establish that “recent
scholarship on this subject would have dissuaded [Dickson] from this course altogether.”

3.2. What Philo really thought

But has Zuiddam himself overturned scholarly opinion by demonstrating that Philo
did in fact read Genesis 1 as straightforward history? He certainly offers
us quotations that sound as though Philo spoke of a literal six days. Careful readers
will observe that in this part of his article Zuiddam stops discussing De Opificio
Mundi, Philo’s dedicated treatise on the Genesis creation account,
and instead offers a selection of statements from another Philonic work, De Decalogo
(On the Decalogue). He calls this “a closer look at Philo’s
writings on the subject.” For me, it is a revealing tactical move. In De Decalogo
Philo’s interaction with Genesis 1 is secondary, and his references to the
famous ‘six days’ are all in passing. It seems methodologically
unsound to use such references as the lens through which to read what Philo says
directly on the subject in his work dedicated to Genesis 1. There are plenty of places in Philo’s massive
corpus (twelve volumes on my bookshelf) where he writes as though the ‘six
days’ were concrete historical days but, in light of what he says in De Opificio
Mundi, these are surely literary references.

Let me offer an imperfect analogy. If you looked back through my sermons over the
years, I am sure you would find a number of passing references to the ‘good
Samaritan’. For example, you would find that I once said, without any clarification,
that “at the heart of Christian living is the love shown by the good Samaritan,
a love that reaches across racial and religious boundaries.” On a superficial
level this sounds like I believe the character in Jesus’ parable really lived
and attended to the injuries of some travelling first-century Jew. But if you listened
to my sermon expounding Luke 10:30-37 directly, you would learn that I regard the
good Samaritan to be a fictional character within a parable. The concrete-sounding
statements were just literary references, and it would be completely inappropriate
to use them as the interpretative lens for understanding my actual sermon on the
parable. Something like this holds for the selection of Philo quotations offered
by Prof Zuiddam.

The reality is, Philo believed that the creation was fashioned in an instant
and that the ‘six days’ of Genesis 1 are, as Runia says, ‘a literary device’
marking the order, perfection and fruitfulness of the creation. This is clear at
De Opificio Mundi 13 (and extrapolated in detail as the treatise unfolds):

He [the writer of Genesis] says that in six days the world was created, not that
its Maker required a length of time for His work, for we must think of God as doing
all things simultaneously, remembering that ‘all’ includes with the
commands which He issues the thought behind them. Six days are mentioned because
for the things coming into existence there was need of order. Order involves number,
and among numbers by the laws of nature the most suitable to productivity is 6.

Philo does not say God could have made all things simultaneously, if he
had wanted to. He says that is what God did. The numbers convey structure
and productivity, according to the ancient Jewish philosopher. Philo may be wrong
but that is what he taught. And I am far from old-fashioned and out-of-touch saying
so. Any further doubt about this should be put to rest by the following quotation
from Professor David Runia’s full-scale commentary on Philo’s De Opificio
Mundi:

Philo is convinced that the scheme of the six days should not be read literally.
It is philosophically quite improbable that God should need time in which to create.
So another explanation for the striking scheme needs to be given. The solution is
to tie the aspect of number to order, which in turn involves hierarchy and structure.4

I urge readers to get hold of a good translation of Philo’s treatise on the
creation and make up their own minds. What is perfectly clear is that Prof Zuiddam’s
claims run counter to his own preferred Philo specialist.

In this connection, I am genuinely puzzled why Prof Zuiddam would say, “the
Alexandrian philosopher actually denies that God used periods of non-specified lengths
of time. This is the very opposite of what Dickson alleges.” I cannot find
anything in my article remotely resembling what Zuiddam says I ‘allege’.
On the contrary, I made plain, as I have above, that Philo believed everything was
made at once.

3.3. What Clement really thought

A similar belief was held by the Christian theologian Clement of Alexandria almost
two centuries after Philo. But, again, I get a scolding from Prof Zuiddam in section
2 of his critique:

Dickson’s argument becomes confused when he tries to build a whole string
of assumptions on his earlier inaccurate representation of Philo. Dickson says that
Christian theologian and evangelist Clement of Alexandria followed Philo’s
interpretation. This statement is rather puzzling, as Philo didn’t have the
interpretation that Dickson alleges. But in a way it is true in the sense that Clement
followed Philo’s interpretation: like Philo he was also some sort of a six
day literalist like all his Jewish and Christian contemporaries.

Prof Zuiddam is as mistaken about Clement as he is about Philo. In Stromata
6.16 (not 16.6, as Zuiddam repeatedly cites it) Clement declares that we are “not
to suppose that God made creation in time.” According to Clement, this is
why Genesis 2:4 adds “in the day that God made
heaven and earth.” He makes the exegetical judgment that Genesis 2:4 states the historical reality, that everything
was created at once in an “indefinite and dateless production”,
whereas the six-day structure of Genesis 1 is intended to convey perfection and productivity—the
echo of Philo is strong.

Moses’ six-fold narrative tells us something about the deep structure of the
world, says Clement. He offers comparisons between the ‘six days’ of
creation and the ‘six months’ it takes to perfect an embryo and the
‘six months’ between the Summer Solstice and the Winter solstice. Prof
Zuiddam thinks these real-world comparisons provide proof that Clement must have
thought the world was made over six real-world days. Why else would Clement make
the comparison! I can think of a range of alternatives, but the correct one is obvious
when Stromata 6 is read on its own terms (as I urge readers to do themselves).
Clement thinks that Moses’ narrative discloses a divine truth about 6—the
number of order and productivity—which can be found everywhere in creation.
Not for a second is Clement contradicting the Alexandrian doctrine, shared with
Philo and stated plainly, that the world was made in an instant and that the six
days of Genesis are theological and literary devices. Clement and Philo could be
wrong—and what they believed has no real interpretative significance, anyway—but
we cannot wave a wand and pretend they said something else.

Conclusion

I have only discussed in detail the first two sections of Prof Zuiddam’s rebuke.
Readers should know, however, that I believe sections 3–9 contain all of the
same ingredients. A full rebuttal, as I said at the outset, would be tedious and,
in this case, is quite unnecessary. The number and degree of misrepresentations,
misunderstandings and errors noted above stand as a caution against reading Zuiddam’s
present article as a reliable guide either to my views or the views of contemporary
experts like David Runia or even the views of ancient writers like Philo, Clement,
Augustine and the rest. I think Prof Benno Zuiddam is mistaken at every substantial
point of critique.

Despite the seriousness of my criticisms, in closing I want to stress that Evangelical
Six-Day-Creationists and Evangelical Non-Six-Day-Creationists
must not demonize each other. Firm debate is healthy; ghettoization and grandstanding,
from either side, are not. I love what C. S. Lewis wrote about Christian disagreement
in his masterpiece Mere Christianity. Comparing true Christendom to a great
house with many rooms, he pleads:

When you have reached your own room, be kind to those who have chosen different
doors and to those who are still in the hall. If they are wrong they need your prayers
all the more; and if they are your enemies, then you are under orders to pray for
them. That is one of the rules common to the whole house.5

Dr John Dickson is Founding Director of the Centre for Public Christianity (www.publicchristianity.org).
He is a Senior Research Fellow of the Department of Ancient History, Macquarie University,
and a lecturer in the Department of Jewish Studies at the University of Sydney.

Further Reading

References

The original article, ‘The Genesis of Everything: an
historical account of the Bible’s opening chapter’ is available online
at: http://www.iscast.org/journal/articlespage/Dickson_J_2008-03_Genesis_Of_Everything.
Return to text.

David T. Runia, Philo of Alexandria On the Creation of
the Cosmos according to Moses: Introduction, Translation and Commentary (Philo of
Alexandria Commentary Series). Leiden: Brill, 2001, 124. Return
to text.

Prof. Zuiddam replies to Dr Dickson

For the reader’s convenience I simply follow the layout and topical order
of Dr Dickson’s reply to my article “Does Genesis allow any scientific
theory of origin?”, which was a response to John P. Dickson, The Genesis of
Everything, ISCAST Journal for Christians in Science and Technology 2008(4):1–18.
However, Dr Dickson has side-stepped the weightier matters that I raised in the
second half of my article; these I raise again briefly in my concluding section
here.

1.1. A haven for evolution?

My criticism was not an evaluation of an author and his possible intentions, but
of what his article is in fact doing. The abstract tells his readers what this is:
“The paper seeks to plot a path through the controversy surrounding the Bible’s
opening chapter by examining Genesis 1 in historical context. The author assumes and
endorses no particular view of human origins but argues for a literal interpretation
of the text, as opposed to what may be called ‘literalistic’.”

As the article unfolds ‘literal’ appears to fit virtually any scientific
theory of origin, including Neo-Darwinism. The author emphatically states: “In
fact, the case made below is consistent with virtually any scientific account of
origins.” (2008:3)

I apologize if it was not Dickson’s intention to create such a haven, but
given the above statement he made, and the arguments in support of it, it should
hardly be surprising that I said he was effectively trying to create a safe haven.
If his public was mostly evolutionists the message of “virtually any scientific
account of origins” is even clearer: “my view of Genesis fits your scientific
account of origins as well; you can embrace the Bible and Darwin as far as Genesis
is concerned.” My article does not depend on Dickson personally embracing
evolutionism, which I did not indicate at any point. However, the short of it is
that his article tries to make out a case for a view of Genesis that is consistent
also with Neo-Darwinism (evolutionism), effectively creating a haven for it (along
with any other view of origins which denies the straightforward historicity of Genesis)
in the bosom of the Church.

1.2. The fathers’ views on Genesis 1

Dickson introduces his treatment of Philo and the Church fathers as: “it is
important to realize that the precedents for a non-literalistic reading of Genesis 1 can be found in the very distant past.”
(2008:4) This sort of reading, (which, he has by then explained, can accommodate
any theory of origin), is then traced back to the Church fathers. He concludes his
treatment of the fathers with: “Be that as it may, the larger point I wish
to make is that a non-literalistic interpretation of Genesis 1 is not necessarily a nervous, modern reaction
to the rise of contemporary science. It is a viewpoint (even if a minority one)
with a long and venerable history in both Jewish and Christian traditions.”
(2008:6) Whatever Dickson’s intentions, these are his words, not mine. My
response shows that Philo and the fathers do not prove the point Dickson tries to
make, but the very opposite.

1.3. Denying the historical Adam

This point is rather surprising. Not at any point does my article accuse Dr Dickson
of denying a historical Adam. For all that I knew, he believed in Adam, particularly
as I was made aware that he resides in Anglican Sydney. My article calls attention
to the problem that Dickson uses Augustine to support a view of Genesis that fits
“virtually any scientific account of origins.” You cannot do this. It
fails almost everywhere when you try it on Darwinism, but particularly where it
concerns the historical Adam.

My remarks were no reflection on Dr Dickson’s ability to access the fathers
or the classics in general, just a genuine conclusion in a situation where there
are only two possibilities: either an author is deliberately misleading his readers
and misrepresenting his sources or: he could have consulted his sources more carefully.
Not for one moment had I considered the first possibility as likely, and as Dickson’s
representation of them was so completely out of tune with what they are actually
saying in context, the second had to be true. I am genuinely pleased to have John
Dickson on board with the historical Adam. However, my article is a response to
an essay that effectively (and effectually) conveys to its largely evolutionist
audience that it is all right to continue with a theory of origin that rules out
an historical Adam (who was not only instantly created with body and soul, but also
the forefather of all mankind).

This should be a very clear indication to the author that his main thesis is flawed.
You cannot embrace “virtually any scientific account of origins” and
believe in an instantly created historical Adam as the father of all mankind at
the same time. It is either, or. Even without reading your Bible, it should be clear
from the treatment of this subject by the Church fathers that their interpretation
of Genesis in fact rules out many of today’s scientific theories of origin,
particularly because of what they held about Adam and the age of the earth.

I welcome the fact that Dr Dickson in his follow-up article, “for the record”
now publicly states his belief in a historical Adam. He does this in a discussion
of the Church fathers on the subject: an instantly created Adam, forefather of the
entire human race, who lived in Paradise. We really seem to have come close in our
personal views on at least these matters. Although his or my personal opinion is
irrelevant to this debate, it is not without consequence. An instantly created Adam,
who had children who are recorded in the Bible and a family tree that leads right
down to Jesus and us, pretty much rules out several prominent scientific theories
of origin. If Dr Dickson uses ‘historical Adam’ in the same sense as
the Church fathers and the article he responds to, this may lead him to reconsider
the main thesis of his ISCAST article, namely that Genesis fits any theory of origin.

2. Inappropriate tone

Tones and tastes tend to differ, but, if Dr Dickson’s response is any standard
for scholarly and Christian conversation, the reader will most likely conclude that
in comparison my article focuses on facts and avoids emotive words.

2.1. The liberal type

I can take Dr Dickson’s assessments of my character, but I have reason to
object to his evaluation of the Dutch minister as a liberal. My article never characterises
this servant of God as a liberal. On the contrary, I introduce him as “minister
of a large evangelical/reformed congregation”. It may be his own perspective
that leads John Dickson to classify him as a liberal, but those are Dr Dickson’s
words, not mine. My article gives an accurate description of what this minister
said. At no stage does it draw personal comparisons between Dickson and this Dutch minister
of a previous generation. It only concludes that their main approach is the same, namely that Genesis allegedly fits an evolutionistic theory of origin. It does not even accuse the Dutch minister of
saying that Jews invented Genesis 1–11; it just shares an historically accurate
anecdote that opens up the theme, “Does Genesis allow any scientific theory
of origin?” These opening lines don’t accuse Dickson of anything. They
merely introduce the main topic of reconciling Genesis with any scientific theory
of origin and some of the historical theological context associated with this debate.

That Dickson’s main thesis (about Genesis fitting virtually any scientific
theory of origin) largely originates in circles that are generally referred to as
“liberal” by evangelicals (my article doesn’t evaluate John Dickson
or this minister as deserving that label) is a historical reality, whether we dislike
it or not. The same applies to Dr Dickson’s view that Genesis was composed
during the Babylonian captivity, nearly a thousand years after Moses. (2008:9) I
don’t think Dickson’s evaluation of the Dutch minister as a “liberal”
is right. I wouldn’t like to use that word. Not for him and not for Dickson.
This man sincerely believed himself to be a Bible-believing reformed evangelical.
Perhaps there are possibilities for comparison between him and Dickson. The fact
of the matter is: my article doesn’t make any. Dr Dickson is welcome to draw
any personal comparisons he likes, provided he does not ascribe them to me.

2.2. Dickson’s ignorance

I willingly profess my ignorance about Dr Dickson and his area of expertise. As
a matter of fact I made it a point not to read up about him when I was requested
to answer his article on Genesis allegedly fitting any theory of origin. At this
level I do not respond to persons and their intentions, but to contents. However,
my article does not accuse the author of ignorance, not in general nor in any of
the particulars. What may have led Dr Dickson to infer that my article says so is
that on three occasions I had sincere reason to believe that he did not consult
his sources carefully. I still believe that to be the case. I had to specifically
state that the author seemed not to be aware of certain data, otherwise I would
have been giving the reader the impression that I believed that John Dickson was
deliberately distorting the facts. Instead, I accepted that he must have been overlooking
(or unaware of) them.

For example, Dickson’s treatment of Thomas Aquinas: this resulted in what
could be construed as a misrepresentation so way off the mark that, in despair,
I stated that the author must have been “blissfully unaware”. I grant
that this could be taken emotively, but I took pains to avoid the word “misrepresentation”
at all cost. I am sorry if this triggered offence, but the alternative was accusing
Dickson of willing misrepresentation. When the article is published in printed journal
format I will remove “blissfully” and replace “unaware”
with “overlooks”. I must confess that I am genuinely bemused by this,
because these words are really quite mild, both in incidence and force, when compared
with Dr Dickson’s response and what he obviously deems suitable for scholarly
and Christian conversation.

2.3. Dickson’s claimed uniqueness

My article makes no judgements on Dr Dickson’s character, but responds to
Dickson’s own introduction of ‘literalistic’ as a label (2008:2):
“I use the word ‘literalistic’ deliberately, as I want to distinguish
between literalistic and literal.”

For the context of Dickson’s article, we are talking scholarly journal here,
requiring proper references—my ‘surprise’ at his introduction
of ‘literalistic’ is justified. Dr Dickson’s use of ‘I’
is potentially misleading in this context. Had he said the same things, but added
a footnote to his statement with references to others who use literalistic, I would
have not even paid attention. Such a footnote to modify the context and indicate
a reflection of other scholarship, however, does not exist. He should have said,
for example, “The term biblical scholars have invented for this is literalistic”,
perhaps adding something to the effect that he thought the term appropriate and
was utilizing it for his article, or similar.

Instead, he presents himself as the one who is suggesting the term to his readers,
without references, writing as a scholar in a journal for scholars. I really think
that I have been as gracious as I could be under the circumstances.

3. Technical errors

I readily agree with Dr Dickson that ‘non-literalistic’ tendencies are
not necessarily a modern Christian reaction, but were present with Philo, and some
of the Church fathers already (2008:6). However, we are not talking tendencies,
or mere length of creation days here, but “a non-literalistic interpretation
of Genesis 1” (which includes the creation of man). Such
a wholesale ‘non-literalistic’ interpretation of Genesis 1 is simply not found with Philo or the Church fathers.
Although they have ‘non-literalistic’ tendencies in their exegesis,
they have a very literalistic approach to Genesis 1 in crucial parts. One could even say that their
particular form of non-literalism is largely irrelevant to this debate, because
it is very different from the kind Dr Dickson seeks to prove in Genesis. Furthermore,
it was the author who chose to precede his treatment of the Church fathers with
an introduction. This introduction specifically states (2008:3): “In fact,
the case made below is consistent with virtually any scientific account of origins.”
My article makes a point of denying this consistency.

At the risk of excessive repetition of this vital point, it is important to realize
that John Dickson’s article does not merely make out a case for any sort of
non-literalistic approach, but for: a non-literalistic approach that supports an
approach to Genesis that is consistent with virtually any scientific account of
origins. It is this specific kind of non-literalistic interpretation that
needs to be traced back to Philo and the Church fathers to be relevant for this
debate. Dickson: “it is important to realize that the precedents for a non-literalistic
reading of Genesis 1 can be found in the very distant past.”
(2008:4) The point that my article makes is that these men cannot be regarded or
used as precedents. Why not? Because even the Church fathers who are mentioned by
Dickson have a profoundly ‘literalistic’ thrust in their interpretation
of Genesis 1, which, for instance, led them to believe in an
instantly created historical Adam and a young earth (compared to today’s long
age fashion). It was their interpretation of Genesis that caused them to have these
views. Augustine didn’t ‘leave science to the scientists’, but
taught them they must be wrong because the world was only a few thousand years old.
He could only say this because of his overall literalistic interpretation of Genesis.
This is not the sort of ‘non-literalistic’ approach that modern secular
theories of origins would feel relaxed about, and it is hardly a precedent for the
non-literalistic approach that Dr Dickson seeks to prove in his article.

3.1. What Philo specialists think

My article uses the Runia quote to ‘call for caution’, not to prove
anything. The fact that Philo didn’t use allegory for Genesis 1 should have made Dickson think twice, as allegory
is closely related to the particular kind of non-literalistic approach
that Dickson seeks to prove. From a scholarly perspective Dickson’s article
would have gained in strength had he interacted with Runia in the first place, rather
than basing himself on a quote that dates back considerably. Colson (1929) might
be the standard edition for some; perhaps my standards are too high, but one would
have expected Dr Dickson’s article to interact with contemporary scholarship
and refer to the book I would have expected him to quote from in the first place
(David T. Runia, Philo of Alexandria: On the Creation of the Cosmos according to
Moses: Translation and Commentary, Philo of Alexandria Commentary Series
1, Leiden: E. J. Brill, 2001). I am glad Dr Dickson has chosen a more updated approach
in his response, but this really should have been present in the original article.

3.2. What Philo really thought

It would have been even more preferable had Dickson interacted with the primary
source, Philo, giving us a quote that unequivocally proves that this Jewish scholar
had a non-literalistic understanding of Genesis that fits any scientific theory
of origin. This is the real point. Dickson’s thesis does not work
for Philo. It is insufficient to prove some non-literalist aspects in Philo. The
context in which these surface makes it clear that Philo may not be used as a precedent
in support of the overall thesis.

My article does not argue against an instant creation in the Alexandrine School
and Augustine. Nor does it deny the great similarities between Philo and Augustine.
Philo’s commentary on the Decalogue at the very least seriously contemplates
that this instant creation was worked out with divine orderliness in six historic
days. Be that as it may, Philo’s approach to Genesis is far too literalistic
to fit Dickson’s theory. If this is not obvious from the way Philo treats
the creation episode as history in his commentary on the Decalogue (not as a parable,
but adding qualifications that ensure his readers don’t misunderstand him:
“Account of events recorded in the history of the creation of the world”,
“for the sacred historian” … ) then it should be abundantly clear
from his commentary on Genesis, which affirms Adam as the first, instantly created,
original man and the primeval founder of the human race. Philo’s approach
rules out many scientific theories of origin, particularly Neo-Darwinism, the prevailing
paradigm of contemporary science.

3.3. What Clement really thought

My article makes the point that Clement does not support Dickson’s theory
that Genesis fits virtually any theory of origin. In terms of Neo-Darwinist
science Clement and the others would be considered literalists, rather than non-literalists,
whether they believed in twenty four-hour days of creation or not.

My article specifically states that in Scripture days do not necessarily
equal exact 24-hour days and it refers to Joshua 10:12 and Isaiah 38:8 to make this point. The point it does make
though, is that whatever the length of the ‘earth rotation’ days in
Clement and Philo, they see the creation account too literally and place it historically
too recently in time to allow for Darwinism, or even ‘progressive creationist’
views that accept secular dating of billions of years. They combine these views
with a very recent origin of the earth and the human race, which, to their mind,
descended from an instantly created Adam a few thousand years ago.

Thanks for pointing out the typo (Stromata 16.6 should have been 6.16;
now corrected). Dr Dickson’s article specifically states that Clement of Alexandria
said that the six days were symbolic with a reference to Stromata 6.16.
This chapter might not be a reflection of Clement’s personal opinion, as he
introduces it as a “specimen of Gnostic interpretation of the Ten Commandments”
(Ὑπόδειγμα δ’ ἡμῖν
κατὰ παραδρομὴν
ἐκκείσθω εἰς
σαφήνειαν γνωστικὴν
ἡ δεκάλογοςHypodeigma d’ hēmin kata paradromēn ekkeisthō eis saphēneian gnōstikēn hē dekalogos).
The point my article makes, however, is that Clement in Stromata 6.16 does
not say that the six days are symbolic. He might have said it elsewhere, but not
there. In this chapter he treats the six days (in which the instant creation outside
time is worked out) in a literalistic historic fashion that is irreconcilable with
Dickson’s main thesis. The days of creation function as a literalistic basis
for number symbolism, which is also part of observable creation around us, as real
as the time from solstice to solstice. The number six is special precisely because
God’s real actions in creation gave it significance.

Conclusion

Let us concentrate on the main issue. The thesis of Dr Dickson’s article was
that Genesis fits virtually any scientific theory of origin, including Darwinist
evolution. His article alleges that the particular non-literalist approach that
supports this viewpoint has a “long and venerable history in both Jewish and
Christian traditions”. Although I readily grant that the exegesis of Philo
and others has some non-literalistic elements, their approach definitely cannot
be said to be a precedent for Dickson’s particular non-literalist theory that
both Genesis and its exposition by Philo and some Church fathers is consistent with
virtually any theory of origin.

I agree that a robust debate is healthy. It concerns God, his revelation, and saints
of old who can no longer defend themselves. Sometimes, even when we don’t
intend to, our views have logical consequences. The Dutch minister at the start
of my story sincerely thought he was upholding the infallibility of Scripture. In
his understanding he had at least shown to his congregation that the evolution theory
had not proved the Bible wrong. Scripture still stood. But did it? The result was
a different God, plus primitive mythology in the Bible.

This is the real point. Dr Dickson’s main thesis is not only ill founded,
it has serious and multiple implications that shake the foundations of traditional
Christian doctrine. In his response John Dickson prefers to ignore these apart from
stating his personal affirmation of an historical Adam (whether instantly created
or not, and whether the progenitor of all of humanity or not are separate questions).
Whatever Dr Dickson’s personal views, his article argues that Genesis is consistent
with Neo-Darwinism. The doctrinal implications of such a view are nearly endless.
Was death a consequence of sin or were sickness and death the creation tools of
a sinister god, who rejoiced in millions of years of suffering? Did mankind have
a historical Fall as described in Genesis, or was there really never such a thing
as a ‘very good’ creation? Can we trust the historical claims of the
actual text of Genesis and other Scripture (e.g. Luke 3) or is it all right to treat these as myths with
no historical bearing? Does the Gospel have any foundation in history or was Jesus
the greatest torturer of all time who created by means of survival of the fittest?
Can we trust him for the creation of a new heaven and earth, or will it be ‘purgatory’
reinvented?

In short, Dickson’s thesis has consequences. Not for one second do I accuse
him personally of necessarily embracing any of these. I merely point out some of
the consequences of a Neo-Darwinist approach as almost completely inconsistent with
Genesis and the doctrinal framework which the historic Christian Church derived
from Scripture.

Genesis 1 has serious implications for scientific theories
of origin. Perhaps the most important one is that the world that we see around us
with its mechanisms of sickness, death and survival of the fittest, is not the original
version, but a corrupted one. This should caution against attempts to extrapolate
theories of origin from a situation that is no longer consistent with the original
state of affairs. However, we are not agnostics. We have God’s Word, which,
if we may believe the Church fathers, reveals to us that we find ourselves in a
fallen world and cursed creation, subject to the wrath of God. It used to be Paradise,
but is no longer. Jesus Christ came into this fallen world to make all the difference,
to give us a realistic hope for something better.

These things concern the God whom we both love. In the spirit of C.S. Lewis, let’s
join the Inklings one day and discuss what we can do together to promote the authority
of New Testament Scripture. Perhaps Romans and the Gospel of Luke would be a place
to good start, as these treat Genesis 1–11 as a reliable historic account that concerns
us all.

Did you notice that there weren’t any ads or annoying page-covering pop ups on our site? Consider undergirding our efforts with a small donation today! Support this site

Comments closed

Readers’ comments

Jack C.,Australia, 16 February 2012

The six days are literal as Genesis clearly delineates each one with "And the evening and the morning were the [nth] day." What more evidence does one need? Also, if anyone doubts that an all powerful God can create the Universe instantly, let alone six days of our time is really doubting God is all powerful. God did it in six literal days instead of instantly for a number of reasons, which I won't go into here.

Martyn M.,Australia, 17 February 2012

A fantastic read. Reasonable respect seemed to be shown by both academics.

Yes Dr Benno Zuiddam's conclusion that Genesis does not fit virtually any scientific theory of origins is vital. I don't know why Dr John Dickson holds his apparent view that Genesis is "consistent with virtually any scientific account of origins", but perhaps I can understand why he would want it to as the following may explain.

A few of years ago I was listening to a Creation Ministries speaker at my church in Albany WA. His talk seemed to be mostly about how Genesis is not consistent with long ages. At that stage I would have loved to believe in a six thousand year old earth as seemed to be the plain reading of scripture but couldn’t, all authority seemed to point conclusively to millions and billions of years. His talk irritated me. In my mind I was thinking “great I am ridiculed by non Christians for my beliefs and now this speaker is putting even more pressure saying I have to believe what my mind is refusing to believe.” All I wanted him to do was give me good evidence to believe in a young earth. This didn’t happen at that stage. I left feeling buffeted from without the church and within. Perhaps Dr John Dickson in his paper was trying to give support to those Christians who were feeling the same.

My point is that understanding the conflict opposing Christians are in helps in the vital dialog about Origins.

However I am grateful to Creation Ministries who have been instrumental in helping me believe in a young earth. I now find the topic fascinating.

Dale O.,New Zealand, 17 February 2012

Hi, Clement's views were the most confusing when I did a survey of Father's views on the age of he earth. However it did seem to me that Clement was explicit in placing Adam at 5592BC in Stromata chapter 21.

Roger B.,Australia, 18 February 2012

An excellent response from Prof Zuiddam to Dr Dickson's comments. It is so important to focus on the theological issues which flow from adopting "any scientific theory of origins", issues which Dr Dickson appears to miss.

Chris R.,Australia, 18 February 2012

I have read Dickson's paper, the critique by Zuiddam, and the responses and counter response in the current article.

On the whole it seems to me that Dickson took pains to distance himself from any position in the creation vs evolution debate and only addressed the question of whether the early church fathers took the 6 x 24 hour interpretation of Genesis or not. He presented his case well. I have sympathy with his response to Zuiddam's critique.

Thank you for at least giving Dickson the right of reply.

Don Batten responds

It was painfully obvious that Dr Dickson resolutely refused to face up to the biblical implications of his errant view of Genesis. Dr Zuiddam tried to get him to engage on the grave consequences of trying to interpret Genesis in a way that accommodates the secular creation myth (evolution in deep time) that is popular today. Dickson's views undermine the Gospel at its roots (soteriology) by allowing death and suffering before the Fall, the goodness of God (theodicy) and eschatology, as well as contradicting Reformation principles of hermeneutics. Indeed his views undermine the very inspiration of the Bible as the Word of God (Genesis is God-inspired, just as much as the Gospels, and not to be wantonly turned to say what we find acceptable; we should engage in exegesis, not eisegesis).

David G.,Australia, 20 February 2012

The term 'literalistic' seems to have been coined, or if not, then reflexively used in Sydney Anglican teaching to avoid the very point that is made by Genesis 1: that it stands obstinately in the way of modern materialism and its theological fellow-travellers. The trouble is, in many Sydney Anglican congregations are highly qualified scientists, and I would not doubt that clergy are wary of alientating their unconsciously imbibed (or maybe not unconsciously) materialism. There are theologians who may also want a more deistic God, but this is speculation on my part.

The point is, Anglicanism wants to maintain its 'respectability' and only follows the word of God as far as it is in 'safe', 'religious' areas where a domain can be carved off from the 'real world'.

Dickson's work is consistent with this, in my view, as is the general disdain of the diocese's theologians for the conservative work that has been done on the text.

Martyn M.,Australia, 22 February 2012

I mentioned previously that both academics showed reasonable respect, after reading again I disagree.

Dr John Dickson‘s comment in the conclusion that cautions readers “against reading Zuiddam’s present article as a reliable guide either to my views or the views of contemporary experts ...” is a pretty heavy blow. It seems to be jumping on the bandwagon slandering Creationists as an ignorant mob.

Now I have great respect for Dr Dickson, and have a few of his books and DVD’s, he comes across as an intelligent sincere Aussie, but I feel he is wrong on this most important issue. However I hope he keeps the door open for correspondence with CMI.

Guyle N.,Canada, 28 February 2012

Thankyou for this excellent article. I really do appreciate the level of research, logic, and clarity this, and many other articles you offer, to equip us to defend the faith and reach out to unbelievers that they may be saved.

Michael H.,Australia, 8 April 2012

Hi all. What is even sadder is that within the AFES movement (Australian Fellowship of Evangelical Students), Dickson is held as a sort of "St Paul" figure. This is for a good reason as he has taught us very good apologetics on new testament historicity.

I am sad that Dickson is very under-prepared on this topic, "wise in his own eyes" and just terrible in general in his writing on Genesis. His responses were even worse. But since Dickson is viewed highly in Reformed evangelical circles, many students have pointed to his article and said "See - Genesis doesn't make a scientific statement. It's alright to believe in evolution, because Genesis isn't about science."